November 26, 2014

Iowa: Cops May Not Snoop On DUI Consultations With Lawyers

Share it Please

Iowa Supreme Court rules that, if asked, Iowa cops must inform DUI suspects of their right to a private consultation with a lawyer.A motorist suspected
of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) has the right in Iowa to
consult privately with an attorney to decide whether to take a
breathalyzer test, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday. The unanimous
decision threw out the evidence against David Joseph Hellstern because a
police officer eavesdropped on Hellstern's phone call. Though Hellstern
asked for privacy, the officer failed to disclose that private
in-person attorney consultations are permitted under state law.

Ankeny
Police Officer Brandon Dyer pulled Hellstern over on March 31, 2013,
claiming Hellstern's vehicle weaved over the road's center line twice.
Officer Dyer smelled alcohol on Hellstern's breath and noted that he was
lethargic and somewhat confused. After Hellstern refused the field
sobriety tests he was arrested and booked at the Polk County Jail.
Officer Dyer read the "implied consent" advisory and asked Hellstern
whether he wanted to make a phone call.

Although Hellstern is a
lawyer, he specializes in family law, real estate and corporate law. He
claims no expertise in DUI or criminal law. As it was 2:19am, none of
the five attorneys he called answered. Finally, attorney Meegan Keller
returned a message at 3am, and Officer Dyer stood close by while
Hellstern consulted with her over the phone.

"Can I have a moment with my attorney?" Hellstern asked.

Officer
Dyer refused, thinking the law did not require him to tell Hellstern
that he could have a private conversation with the lawyer if she came to
the jail in person. At 3:36am, Hellstern took the breath test under
protest. He blew a 0.19, more than double the legal limit.

Polk
County District Court Judge Joe E. Smith agreed with Officer Dyer that
there was no right to be informed about the possibility of a private
conversation with a lawyer. He fined Hellstern $1250 and sentenced him
to three days in jail. Hellstern appealed on the grounds that he had a
constitutional right to counsel and that Iowa law provides a clear right
to privacy for anyone arrested.

"An attorney shall be permitted
to see and consult confidentially with such person alone and in private
at the jail or other place of custody without unreasonable delay," Iowa
Code Section 804.20 states.

The high court reviewed case law
stretching back to 1990 that held whenever an arrestee invokes a
statutory right, even if imperfectly phrased, the police officer must
explain what the arrestee is allowed to do.

"In this case,
Hellstern unequivocally requested a private attorney-client conference
before he submitted to the Breathalyzer test," Justice Thomas D.
Waterman wrote for the court. "We hold that Hellstern adequately invoked
his statutory right to a confidential consultation with his attorney
under section 804.20 by requesting privacy during his phone call,
triggering Officer Dyer's duty to inform him that the attorney must come
to the jail for a confidential conference. Officer Dyer's failure to
explain the scope of the right to a confidential consultation violated
section 804.20. The remedy for such a violation of section 804.20 is
suppression of the chemical test results."

Chief Justice Mark
Cady and Justice Bruce B. Zager agreed with their colleagues but argued
separately that the court must go further. The current system where some
know their rights and others do not should be changed, they argued.

"No
rule of law should work as a trap for any person or the government,"
the justices wrote in a concurring opinion. "To ensure a fair and
neutral application of the statute into the future, our prior cases
should be reversed and replaced with a simple rule that a peace officer
must advise every arrested person of the statutory right to counsel."

A copy of the decision is available in a 120k PDF file at the source link below.Source:Iowa v. Hellstern (Iowa Supreme Court, 11/21/2014)

DUI laws seem to be constantly changing. At any given point, multiple state legislatures may be debating new laws that change how drunk dr...

Blog Archive

MY OVI

One day we stumbled upon an idea, to make blog especially for this purpose. DUI/DWI laws are a big branch of law, so they need a special attention. That day MY OVI was launched. We're working hard since 2010.

Links

Blogroll

The acronyms DUI, DWI, OMVI and OVI all refer to the same thing: operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The most commonly used terms are DUI, an acronym for Driving Under the Influence, and DWI, an acronym for Driving While Impaired.